MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom suffered another setback in the New
Zealand courts last week in a side-show dispute relating to the shutdown
of the one-time file-transfer platform.

The US authorities shutdown MegaUpload on copyright
infringement grounds all the way back in 2012, of course. They have been
trying to extradite Dotcom from his adopted home of New Zealand to face
criminal charges back in America ever since.

There has been all sorts of other legal wrangling in relation
to the shutdown of MegaUpload in both the US and New Zealand alongside
the core extradition hearings. And that includes Dotcom’s claims that
New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau illegally spied
on him, his family and his colleagues ahead of the 2012 shutdown of his
company, and the accompanying raid on his then home.

Based on those allegations from Dotcom, the conduct of the GCSB
was subsequently investigated. And by 2013 it had been confirmed that
the agency had indeed broken the law in the way it spied on Dotcom and
his associates. That confirmation predictably resulted in further
litigation from the MegaUpload camp.

Among other things, Dotcom has been trying to get access to the
recordings made when the GCSB was intersecting his communications as
part of its illegal investigation. However, the spy agency has argued
that the recordings should remain confidential citing the country’s 2006
Evidence Act, and claiming that “the public interest in the information
being disclosed [is] outweighed by the public interest in withholding
it”.

New Zealand’s High Court accepted the GCSB’s arguments in 2017,
but Dotcom appealed, in particular taking issue with the way the lower
court dealt with the case. However, last week the country’s Court Of
Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling.

The appeal judges said that while “the intercepted
communications are relevant and there is a public interest in them being
disclosed” to inform Dotcom’s ongoing case against the spy agency …
“the GCSB’s claim that disclosure would harm national security and
international relations is well-founded”. The appeals court’s job, the
judges said, was to balance these two facts. They concluded: “The
balancing exercise favours non-disclosure”.

Responding on Twitter, Dotcom declared that – given it’s agreed that the GCSB broke the law back in 2011 and 2012 – last week’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent.

“Unfortunately I live in a country”, he said, “where judges
were appointed by a shady former attorney general who broke the law
multiple times in my case. His appointments show that he picked Judges
who are loyal to him. The law doesn’t matter in my case and your rights
suffer as a result”.

Meanwhile, Dotcom’s US-based lawyer Ira Rothken argued that
last week’s ruling should be grounds to stop the extradition of his
client to America.

Also posting on Twitter, he wrote that “the government’s illegal spying in the Kim Dotcom case coupled with state refusal to provide relevant evidence amounts to extreme abuse. No court should entertain an extradition case so tainted with violations of basic human rights – it should now be dismissed in the interests of justice”.